Ashraf Arsal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1877/2020[2025] HKCFI 5251

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Nov 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1877/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1877 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ashraf Arsal	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:

1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the DOI as a putative interested party; and

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 21 September 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 14 September 2020, which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 15 October 2018 in refusing his non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and as an interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the DOI as a putative interested party.

No Intention to Proceed

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing but did not attend the scheduled hearing on 11 September 2025. Upon enquiry with the Immigration Department, it transpired that the Applicant was granted dependent visa in 2021.

4.Given the grant of dependent visa after filing of the Form 86 and his absence at the scheduled hearing, I am driven to the view that the Applicant has no intention to proceed with this application.

5.This application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 11^th day of November 2025

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 11 November 2025 Ashraf Arsal Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 11 November 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14101/18/10/443/P2797 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3564/18 (formerly RBCZ 10366/18)(PSO) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error